are human logic?

[danyboy27]

humans have an incredible intelligence and the capability to build big spaceship, cure disease all that, that make us logic, or at least that give us the capacity of reasonning.

but if you look at it, a lot of our logic disappear when emotion and feeling kick in, that would mean we are illogical.

sometimes, i wonder if animals are more logical than us on certain aspect, since they dont have the emotions and the feeling that we posses.

your opinion?

[Lynx]

Animals can be more time efficient in their decision making process than a human being emotional or otherwise engaged in observing, or investigating something.

[mikelepore]

To use logic you need to be willing to accept generalizations. We can say, "If it's raining I'll bring the umbrella", etc., because we can be detached enough from that simple inanimate object that we will have no fear of making the generalization. We can use it in a syllogism without hesitation. But when the subject is human society and its problems, people have the habit of hesitating to express any necessary generalizations. For example, I think the following is a perfectly good substitution: (A) You just said that you want to eliminate the major cause of water pollution; (B) You just said that running factories for profit is the major cause of water pollution; (C) Therefore, to be consistent, you should want to eliminate the practice of running factories for profit. But the other person will immediately hesitate and backtrack. The other person will say, "Hold on, there. Maybe we were too hasty to make statement A and statement B. Now these statements appear to be overly broad. Now the situation seems to be more complicated than we earlier thought." People are afraid of making the commitment of saying: here's a principle -- when I said it I meant it -- I continue to stand by it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The sort of 'logic' we ordinarily use is outlined here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

[danyboy27]

but if humans where generally logic capitalism would not exist, beccause an equal distribution of ressources would be more logical.

wich mean the main reason why capitalism and religion exist is illogism, and if 90% of the illogic decision we take is beccause of feeling and emotion, the only way to really become purely logic would be to supress any emotion and feelings, then we could move on and equally distribute the world wealth, assuring to mankind a greater degree of survivability.

[Bud Struggle]

but if humans where generally logic capitalism would not exist, beccause an equal distribution of ressources would be more logical. Is that logical? I could argue that for me the "best" logical conclusion in any cimcumstance is for me to have everything and you to have nothing--or just what you need to get along to serve me. The logical thing is for me to climb to the top and get everything I want. What makes you think that it logical that we should be fair towards each other?


wich mean the main reason why capitalism and religion exist is illogism, and if 90% of the illogic decision we take is beccause of feeling and emotion, the only way to really become purely logic would be to supress any emotion and feelings, then we could move on and equally distribute the world wealth, assuring to mankind a greater degree of survivability.

I'd say you can make the case for the opposite case being as logical if not more, pretty easily. You can make a case for someone looking out for himself and his family, but as the "looking out for" extends further and further from neighbors, to state, to country to the world it gets thinner and thinner. And even it it's logical, it is highly unreasonable.

The problem here is (as noted in Rosa's excellent link) is that we are not starting with and undebatable solid facts as premises. We all want the best for everyone in the world, but the betterment of every person in the world is not our starting point of how we live our lives on a daily basis. We look out for ourselves, and we do so on a short term immediate basis. And that kind of think would have to change drasticly if we were to implement Communism.

I personally just don't see it happening. It would be nice if it did maybe even logical, but it's not reasonable to think it will occur. Communists are "Romantics" in this reguard.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

To use logic you need to be willing to accept generalizations. We can say, "If it's raining I'll bring the umbrella", etc., because we can be detached enough from that simple inanimate object that we will have no fear of making the generalization. We can use it in a syllogism without hesitation. But when the subject is human society and its problems, people have the habit of hesitating to express any necessary generalizations. For example, I think the following is a perfectly good substitution: (A) You just said that you want to eliminate the major cause of water pollution; (B) You just said that running factories for profit is the major cause of water pollution; (C) Therefore, to be consistent, you should want to eliminate the practice of running factories for profit. But the other person will immediately hesitate and backtrack. The other person will say, "Hold on, there. Maybe we were too hasty to make statement A and statement B. Now these statements appear to be overly broad. Now the situation seems to be more complicated than we earlier thought." People are afraid of making the commitment of saying: here's a principle -- when I said it I meant it -- I continue to stand by it.
Well that's because a conclusion built on flawed premises is no good to anyone. Furthermore, there is also a need for proportionality. For example, (A) you just said you want to eliminate the major cause of water pollution (B) human activity is the major cause of water pollution... what satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from those premises?

The problem with using logic when it comes to human and social issues is that these issues are vastly more complex and iner-linked than they might first appear. Humans have many many different interests, wants and needs and many of these are in constant conflict with each other. So while logic is undoubtedly the best way to do things, a simple syllogism based on a black and white view of the world is not.

[Lynx]

but if humans where generally logic capitalism would not exist, beccause an equal distribution of ressources would be more logical.
It could be seen as more equitable or more efficient, that would depend on your goal or your perspective.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

humans have an incredible intelligence and the capability to build big spaceship, cure disease all that, that make us logic, or at least that give us the capacity of reasonning.

but if you look at it, a lot of our logic disappear when emotion and feeling kick in, that would mean we are illogical.

That's because critical thinking is a learned behaviour, it doesn't come instinctively.

This is balanced by the fact that learning is instinctual, and if done right this can be used to firmly cement critical and logical thinking.

Humans can and should be taught these things, even if we're not perfect at them.


sometimes, i wonder if animals are more logical than us on certain aspect, since they dont have the emotions and the feeling that we posses.Animal logic works for animals due to natural selection. It's not perfect either, but works well enough most of the time. But it's not good enough for us; we must think deeper.


I'd say you can make the case for the opposite case being as logical if not more, pretty easily. You can make a case for someone looking out for himself and his family, but as the "looking out for" extends further and further from neighbors, to state, to country to the world it gets thinner and thinner. And even it it's logical, it is highly unreasonable.Hardly. You can't ignore the bigger picture - if you live in a society where most people are getting shafted, the chances are very good you'll end up getting shafted yourself. It is one's direct self-interest to have a society where as few people get shafted as possible.

[danyboy27]

It could be seen as more equitable or more efficient, that would depend on your goal or your perspective.

yea but without feeling or emotion there is no real perspective or goal, only what logical and what isnt.

[Bud Struggle]

Hardly. You can't ignore the bigger picture - if you live in a society where most people are getting shafted, the chances are very good you'll end up getting shafted yourself. It is one's direct self-interest to have a society where as few people get shafted as possible.

Oh, I agree it makes sense. It just seem s that the history of the world has been, "I got mine, so fuck you." I think Communists have a particularly universal outlook on the world that most people really don't share--I don't know if that (your) attitude is innate, it may be something that needs to be inculcated through education, or maybe that's backword, it is innate and education teaches isolationism ir regionalism.

I must say, as someone that grew up during the Cold War, I was vastly taught that Communism (through the SU and China) was evil, in both the general sense (the philosophy [not that it was ever explained] was hateful) and in the particular (the SU was DEDICATED to blowing my eight year old ass to smithereens with an atomic bomb.)

Maybe things can be different without all the jingoistic sword rattling.

[Lynx]

yea but without feeling or emotion there is no real perspective or goal, only what logical and what isnt.
It is rare for people to explore something without any motivation or bias. It may be a task worth striving for.

[danyboy27]

It is rare for people to explore something without any motivation or bias. It may be a task worth striving for.

well, animals are doig things according to survival and instincts, if you remove emotion and feeling from the equation, the only thing left for humanity is self preservation+highly logical thinking, this would lead us to communism, and an equal sharing of our ressources, but in order to do that, we have to remove feelings and emotion from the equation, that the only way out.

[Lynx]

well, animals are doig things according to survival and instincts, if you remove emotion and feeling from the equation, the only thing left for humanity is self preservation+highly logical thinking, this would lead us to communism, and an equal sharing of our ressources, but in order to do that, we have to remove feelings and emotion from the equation, that the only way out.
We would also have to remove ulterior motives, which can be cold, calculating and dispassionate. Communism is not the only system consistent with self-preservation.

[danyboy27]

We would also have to remove ulterior motives, which can be cold, calculating and dispassionate. Communism is not the only system consistent with self-preservation.

no, but its probably the only one i know that rationalize that much.